On June 30th, I wrote an email to Garry Breitkreuz, who has to date been the most vocal Member of Parliament to oppose the long-gun registry provision contained in Canada’s Firearms Act. Mr. Breitkreuz has repeatedly introduced legislation to scrap the registry, and I wanted to hear from him directly and also share his opinion on my blog.
Large Portrait Photo
Garry Breitkreuz, Member of Parliament
I understand that to some I am just a grad student working with the Advocacy Project ‘to change the world’, but I thought Breitkreuz might recognize the importance of healthy debate and take a few minutes out of his busy schedule to talk with me, or at least to return my email. What was I thinking? I never heard back.
On July 14th, I followed up. This time I included a link to my blog, so that he would see that many of his supporters have been leaving comments in support of him, and against the registry. Of course this time, his office replied. It was a polite reply, albeit generic. Not once in the email I received was it mentioned that I had requested a brief interview.
Instead, to help me in my “quest to determine the legitimacy of the firearms registry,” one of Mr. Breitkreuz’s assistants invited me to read an essay that clearly states his position. I am already aware of his position. During the two weeks I patiently waited for a reply, I had already read the article, more than once. I wanted to talk to him.
I was also kindly directed towards Mr. Breitkreuz’s website, in order to take a historical peek at his involvement in firearms issues. In addition, I was provided the link to a publication that contains comments from frontline police officers on their feelings towards the registry. I have already seen these things.
I can take a hint. I know what a response like this means. His assistant did his job well by successfully deflecting my request for an interview. Having to talk to someone who disagrees with him would have been an inconvenience for Mr. Breitkreuz.; pointing me towards websites and suggesting others that I may want to contact was a much easier route to take.
I must say that I am disappointed in the response I received, as I think that individuals who strongly disagree with one another are more easily able to find common ground when face to face (or in this case, phone to phone) dialogue takes place. Additionally, Mr. Breitkreuz spent an impressive number of years teaching before entering politics, which led me to believe that he might understand the importance of engaging students.
I sent the same request and follow-up email to Member of Parliament Candice Hoeppner. Ms. Hoeppner has essentially taken over the fight for Mr. Breitkreuz through her introduction this session of a bill that would eliminate the registry. Maybe I shouldn’t be so hard on Mr. Breitkreuz. At least his office responded to my request, something Hoeppner’s office has yet to do.
Tags: Canada's Firearms Act, Candice Hoeppner, Disarming Domestic Violence, domestic violence, Garry Breitkreuz, gun control, IANSA
Ms. Mandelman, Garry Breitkreuz has made a habit…. no, a mission… to talk to people he disagrees with, for some 15 years. Maybe he’s just not willing to talk to agenda-driven, closed-minded individuals anymore… especially ones whose pay cheque is signed by a group devoted to civilian disarmament.
“Having to talk to someone who disagrees with him would have been an inconvenience for Mr. Breitkreuz.; pointing me towards websites and suggesting others that I may want to contact was a much easier route to take.”
Aren’t you the person that keeps closing the comments on her blog on all the firearms related topics when they don’t agree with you?
Perhaps I should have included in my email to Mr. Breitkreuz that my fellowship is completely self-funded. Do you think that knowing I’m not getting a paycheck from anyone and that I’m fighting for something that I truly believe in, just like him, would change his mind? I don’t.
Excuse me but you’re one to talk of stifling debate when you yourself were censoring comments posted to your blog that didn’t coincide with your own particular bias!
Pot, meet kettle.
Oh and say goodbye to your last vestiges of credibility!
When I feel that the main arguments of both those for and against the registry have been made, I close the comment period. Nobody is going to sit and read 50 comments. People lose interest.
Ms. Mandelman, if you are funding your own fellowship, then I have to give credit where credit is due. Hat’s off.
I don’t disagree with you any less, though
…. In fact, have to wonder where your belief comes from. I notice on earlier postings that you have had at least one offer to go out to a range and meet some “gun people”…. have you taken up this offer in order to give yourself a more clear picture of who is affected by Canada’s firearms laws?
“I suggest you take a look at past comments posted to my blog and read them more thoroughly. MANY don’t coincide with my opinion.”
But there are also many more you “conveniently” delete.
As for “dialogue” that implies that both sides are willing to listen. Your previous posts and comments clearly indicate you have little to no desire to accept or understand facts and reality.
^^^ OK, but…. this isn’t about hunting, this is about guns. Hunting rifles, shotguns, pistolas automaticas, and scary-looking black guns with banana-shaped magazines, bipods, sniper scopes and picatinny rails with tactical lights on them… OMFG, think of the chill-drun!
You have chosen to align yourself with the gun-control crowd. The vast majority of this crowd, and even some of firearms users, compartmentalize guns, saying things like “no one needs a military-style gun” or, “you can’t hunt with a revolver”. Problem with that logic is that these are simply objects, and compartmentalizing them drives a wedge into the issue: Bad people use weapons to commit crimes. Bad People will use the weapon at hand, eg: Colonel Mustard in the drawing room with the candelabra; Good People use firearms as tools (hunting, predator control, self-defense), and for hobbies (cowboy action shooting, pistol matches, long-range target shooting, military arms matches…)
Who should care what guns Good People have registered, if those guns are used and stored responsibly?
Wouldn’t it be better to direct your energies and passion towards the illegal use of firearms by the Bad People including stiffer penalties for crimes in which a weapon is used; and towards redirecting registry monies towards more services for abused women, the mentally ill, and front-line policing?
Individuals who use guns to hurt their spouses are Bad People. Check out iansa.org, and I think you’ll see that the overrarching goals of IANSA align quite nicely with your suggestions of where I should direct my energies.
Individuals who use ANYTHING to hurt their spouses are bad people.
“Women are three times more likely to die violently if there is a gun in the house. Usually the perpetrator is a spouse or partner, often with a prior record of domestic abuse. Gun violence can be part of the cycle of intimidation and aggression that many women experience from an intimate partner. For every woman killed or physically injured by firearms, many more are threatened. This is why IANSA has launched a campaign to demand policies which would keep women safe from gun violence.
Disarming Domestic Violence is the first international campaign to protect women from gun violence in the home. The main goal is to ensure that anyone with a history of domestic abuse is denied access to a firearm, or have their [b]licenses[/b] revoked.” (IANSA)
100% dead on: a partner with a prior history of domestic abuse should not have firearms. IANSA correctly identifies this: Licensing would take care of that… they don’t mention registration. can you share with your audience IANSA’s position on women using a firearm to protect themselves against violence?
You of all people have no place saying that Mr. Breikreutz is not willing to debate as you have shown a pathological unwillingness to face FACTS.
SR,
If you want to continue arguing that by not posting ALL of the comments I receive, all of which send exactly same message, feel free. Most people can see right through it. I also think that the tone of your posts indicate exactly the reason I’m unable to include some of the comments I receive on my blog. I choose to engage respectful individuals in dialouge and debate, which I’ve made clear in previous entries.
This may sound like a dumb question.. But why should he talk to you.. You’ve made it clear all you want to do is harp on your side and that his side, and anyone that thinks like him is wrong..
Guns are not bad they are inanimate objects.. The people that misuse them are the problem..
Can explain to me why when drunk and car get together it’s the drunks fault but when a gun and an person get together it’s the gun’s fault when something bad happens…
Why is that social engineers who insist in meddling in the education system, politics and families haven’t’ figured out how to do something about bad people yet.. But becuase they can’t they have decided that stripping people of their rights (and in this case I’m talking about guns) and freedoms.. Paul Martin said once when asked about property rights that it would be too expensive… What did he mean by that?… Even the Chinese have property rights..
Hello again Elizabeth- You haven’t contacted me yet to go shootin’! The offer is still open & I’m safe (honest – my license has cleared me many times over in terms of any criminal behavior)
Anyhow, you might not be receiving a paycheck from the coalition for gun control, but you do seem to use their “stats”. Thusly….. But anyhow, what part of us all *agreeing* with you that violent people shouldn’t have guns don’t you understand? People who cause harm to *anyone* (I’m not just fighting for one side on that one personally) shouldn’t have access to them, this is true. Licensing prevents this, the registry does not. The police would be foolish in this day & age not to simply *assume* that a gun may be present at one of their calls. That’s basically the only use for it & even that is broken. Case in point – Many old rifles don’t even have serial numbers. I could hold 80 of one type & only register one. Show the registration & it shows the correct model, but nowhere does it show a definitive ID. Could be any one of many. But that’s just another of it’s many flaws.
Seriously, no legal gun owner of either long gun or handgun wants to see violence with them against anyone. If you want to make society a safer place, a very admirable thing really, then go after the revolving door that is the justice system rather than going after those who really aren’t the bad ones in this case. No one likes violence (except on TV & the movies it seems) against women or kids or even other men. But going against what in reality is the only police-certified group of hobbyists is kinda foolish. We’re not out to harm; Criminals are.
Kent
Elizabeth Mandelman says: “When I feel that the main arguments of both those for and against the registry have been made, I close the comment period. Nobody is going to sit and read 50 comments. People lose interest.”
I see. So when you pick and choose which opinions you wish to give an audience to, it’s simply because people might not be interested, but when others do it, it’s “stifiling debate”? Setting aside the unmitigated arrogance of presuming to know what opinions others may or may not be interested in reading, has it occured to you that Mr Breitkreuz may simply be disinterested in what you have to say?
Here is an offer you cannot refulse (or should not).
I note that you live in Waterloo at the moment and have on occasion traveled to London for various conferences which from my perspective are aimed at taking away my rights.
I would welcome to opportunity to take you out shooting.
Yes shooting!
As an added bonus I will have my 19 year old daughter who is a student at UWO attend as well.
I will provide all the guns, ammo and safety equipment.
At the same time we can “discuss” and or “debate” this issue for as long as you have.
Drop me an email to discuss.
Just last night I had two young ladies out for an introduction and I have 4 more nurses I am taking out on Sunday.
One more will not cramp my schedule……..who knows we both might learn something.
Federal Member of Parliament denied an interview with a graduate student who has a blog and is not a resident in his riding and secondly not permanent resident or Canadian citizen or at least from your bio I assume. I can’t even get my provincial or federal member to return my calls and I am a registered voter that actually does vote and to top it off I’m a tax payer. And when I do get a response it’s a simple form letter that is exactly the same minus name changes sent to other citizens in other ridings. With politicians who follow the party line. To be honest I am not surprised especially since this Member of Parliament is very clear on his stance.
“Individuals who use guns to hurt their spouses are Bad People.“
No, they are worst then bad people they are criminal’s who abuse the vulnerable and are predators. I am not trying to re-victimize victims here, but people that would abuse there loved ones seek out people who will “allow” it to happen often these people have been in the cycle of violence from birth. There are already ample laws in this country that could deal with the problem if judges actually applied the law as written that is of course if the cycle of violence is broken. There are many organizations in place to deal with domestic violence ranging from emergency shelters, social workers and the police.
When you get down to brass tacks firearms owners view the Canadian justice system as far too lenient and weak especially on just about all crimes especially involving guns where the offender is not a paper criminal, but a real one. The laws are there they just are not enforced.
“I’m not telling you not to and I’m not trying to eliminate your hobby, as long as it’s done safely and legally.”
You have aligned yourself with IANSA by default you support an organization that has every intention of eliminating more then one of my hobbies, but limiting my property rights and damaging my civil liberties. The agenda of IANSA is clear and domestic violence is just a tool for then to “Stigmatize” legal owners and paint the whole firearms community as monsters.
Thanks,
Paul
Andrew,
“Women are three times more likely to die violently if there is a gun in the house.”
Please source your statistics. Where did they come from other then the IANSA website and are they peer reviewed. Are they for Canada or the World. I hope they do not include the 3rd world while have a conversation about Canada.
“Usually the perpetrator is a spouse or partner, often with a prior record of domestic abuse.”
Usually? So in theory if a women is killed in a hit and run, but either she or someone else who she lives with owns a gun it gets counted in the statistic? By this definition 99% of Swiss women live in a home with a firearm so every time a Swiss women is killed do they get added to that statistic?
“Gun violence can be part of the cycle of intimidation and aggression that many women experience from an intimate partner. For every woman killed or physically injured by firearms, many more are threatened. “
And there are amply laws in Canada that already cover this. The problem is the cycle of violence itself where the abused does not stand up to the abuser no help can be given if no one knows. And I am not trying to blame the abused here just indication the major problem is not inanimate objects it is the cycle.
“This is why IANSA has launched a campaign to demand policies which would keep women safe from gun violence. Disarming Domestic Violence is the first international campaign to protect women from gun violence in the home. The main goal is to ensure that anyone with a history of domestic abuse is denied access to a firearm.”
No, the goal of this is to forward IANSA agenda of the removal of all small arms from civilians. It is used to “stigmatize” all those that would appose them and paint an inaccurate picture of the average firearms owner. Canada already has such laws and they are not in question right now and have nothing to do with this MP’s position on the registry.
Thanks,
Paul
I would urge you to accept the invitation. It would be a bit presumptuous to think oneself in a position to discuss firearm legislation with so little hands-on experience with our current legislation or even firearms themselves.
One learns more about life outside of a classroom than in.
Elizabeth, I think you are speaking well beyond your level of experience here. I have sent well over 1000 letters to various Canadian politicians of all political stripes on a range of issues, from city councilors to the Prime Minister. Only in the case of my local representative (i.e. my city councilor, MPP, or MP) have I ever received a personal response. I’m on a first-name basis with all of my elected representatives and have been since before I was old enough to vote. Let me share some tips with you:
1. Backbench MPs rarely respond to communications from out-of-constituency citizens, let alone foreigners. They will usually forward your correspondance to the office of their party’s leader or a cabinet minister, both of which will send you a canned letter.
2. NO ONE TAKES EMAIL SERIOUSLY. Sorry for the caps. It is just way too easy to send an email. Why don’t you make a list of public figures you’ve successfully scheduled a face-to-face or phone interview with by email. How many? None? That’s what I thought. I was told by my MP’s secretary that he receives around 500 emails per day to his official parliamentary email. Most of those go unread. Call or stop by the constituency office. This is an easy way for them to weed out out-of-constituency people who are just looking for an argument, not a constructive discussion.
3. Make yourself known. Call often, get to know the secretaries or assistants. People who make the effort to write real letters and make visits matter because they make the effort to vote. People who can’t be bothered don’t matter and never will. Show them how much you care about your issues and you’re more likely to get a response. Many MPs, despite being bound by party lines in the House, are good people and will act on your behalf in non-political matters (if you are having trouble with a government department or agency for example).
See Elizabeth, what you’ve done here is made a mountain out of a molehill. If I went around making sweeping accusations every time I was ignored by an MP I’d have run out of breath a long time ago. You don’t know guns, you don’t know Canada, and you don’t know politics, but for some reason you think you’re qualified to write about Canadian gun politics. It’s pretentious and offensive.
The Firearms Act is very complex. Most of it was written by people like yourself who have no practical knowledge of firearms, kind of like an non-engineer writing the building code. As a result it is so non-nonsensical, contradictory and complex that most police officers and many Crown attorneys don’t understand it (which I why I have to carry a booklet explaining portions of it to provide to police officers). The Crown refrains from using parts of it because they know that doing so will result in portions of the Act being struck down as unconstitutional. In spite of all this, you claim to understand it better than those who have been living it for nearly 15 years. You display blatant misconceptions and factual errors about how the Canadian firearms bureaucracy works and yet have the gall to talk down to us about it. That is insulting and it’s part of the reason why you get such a negative response.
I’d love to meet you face-to-face – as you said this often fosters understanding much better than more detached methods. It seems to me like you love debate, but only as long as it’s on YOUR terms. Prove me wrong by meeting with me or any of the other members of the gun community that have offered to do so right here. Let me share with you my ideas for a gun control scheme that is both more effective and far less of a burden on gun owners. These aren’t ideas rooted in ideology, but in years of experience with guns and gun control, something you are sorely lacking. If saving lives is truly what you care about then you will accept my offer or a similar one. Otherwise you are just another ideologue who wants to get guns out of people’s hands by any means possible.
Consider this a standing invitation for the next time you’re in Toronto. Coffee is on me, and I’m nicer in person (I promise).
Hi Elizabeth,
Perhaps an effective way for you to get in touch with Mr. Breitkreuz would be to have a friend of yours, who is both a Canadian citizen and a resident of his constituency to hand write a letter to him, asking him for an interview. Failing that, you might consider asking a resident of the constituency you live in to write a letter to their MP asking the same thing and CC’ing Mr. Breitkreuz. Of course, you always have the option of personally stopping by their local MP or even Mr. Breikreuz’s office to discuss the matter personally.
I handwrite letters to my Member of Parliament on a frequent basis, by my count; I’m at a dozen in 2 years. Only once did I receive a personalized response from my MP, when I sent him a handwritten letter detailing how my home was raided by police, because of a false threat accusation by an ex-girlfriend. I sent him the court hearing documents too for good measure (including the dismissal of the crowns claim of me being a danger to society and the return of all my property, including my guns). He sent me a letter, telling me he forwarded my letter to the Minister of Justice, and personally reiterated his personal support for the abolition of the Firearms Registry.
Just as you COULD easily dismiss this comment and censor and deny it from existence; so too can, and will, most politicians dismiss most electronic correspondents they receive. I presume they are still busy people and have the important job of representing their constituents, even their fellow countrymen.
If you are ever in Calgary or Edmonton, please feel free to post about it on the internet. I’m sure myself or any of us big city, Western types would be happy to invite you to our local range to show you our sport and way of life, in the hopes that you might come to understand why we are so passionate about it.
Thank you for reading my post, and all the best in your future endeavors!
HTC
Sorry Elizabeth,
One thing I might add, not to beat around the bush. C-68 the Firearms Act dramatically pushed the envelope on what we as gun owners could do, and opened the door to all sorts of invasive, unconstitutional government regulation and policy. The Gun Registry is something of the polarizing lightning rod, that those of us in the shooting community look to as the epitome of this.
The belief that (by today’s count) 20 million firearms across a could be registered in a country of 30 million that spans 9 million square kilometers is absolutely asinine. The politicians who implemented this law has absolutely no idea about the culture of the people it affected or the specifics of the objects the law was meant to regulate.
It’s clear your an activist in support of the registry – but here is the problem, and the reason why so many of us in the shooting community are eager to invite you to see what we do.
The law is flawed and has failed and it’s failure has become a horrible burden for the rest of the country.
If you were to come shooting with me, I could show you the Canadian made, Cooey .22 bolt action rifle I have, that has no serial number on it, and by the simple act of making 5 phone calls to the Canada Firearms Centre, could be registered as 5 separate firearms. I could show you the subcompact GLOCK19 pistol I have, whose frame makes it small enough to fit in my back pocket, but has a barrel length just long enough to make it legal to own. I could show you a 12 gauge shotgun I own that is shorter than my house cat (less the tail – he’s a small cat), but because of the way it is manufactured is perfectly legal for me to carry (unloaded) in the backseat of my SUV (I do have a license after all). I could show you the hand held airgun I have that is more than capable of inflicting life threatening injuries, but is not a firearm under the current definition of firearms under the criminal code.
If you’re in support of registration, classification, and outright control – you have to understand what it is your trying to register, classify, and control.
Sorry Elizabeth, but I’m in a talkative mood tonight.
The guns I mentioned in my previous post, I meant to mention to highlight the failure of the gun registry and the gun control program put in place in Canada.
Allow me to clarify my specific examples.
The Cooey bolt action rifle example was meant to show how easy it is for gun owners to skew data within the registry. Like I said, all a person would have to do is call the CFC, and tell them I have an unregistered Cooey bolt action rifle with no serial number on it for it to be registered to them. Do you honestly think the RCMP dispatches a Firearms Officer to inspect each and every gun transfer they process? I’m up to 15, and so far not once have I had an officer visit me. Being a law abiding citizen, I don’t exploit this weakness in the registration system, however I know a lot people who do. If you think anyone could be prosecuted for doing this, you’re mistaken – evidence in the gun registry cannot be introduced in court.
The GLOCK19 example I sighted, because with C68, the government tried to bring about a “minimum length” law, to prohibit guns that were shorter than a certain length. Unfortunately, the way they phrased that law, was such that the length of a gun was determined by it’s barrel. The GLOCK19 frame by itself would have qualified it as prohibited (and theoretically, banned from ownership), but all that gun owners and vendors had to do was replace the barrel with one long enough to exceed the regulation, and it was perfectly legal (restricted, but legal).
The case of the short shotgun I described, goes to show, again, how C-68 mean to try to restrict or prohibit the length of a firearm, but included a loophole (sic) “by modification,” meaning if a gun was shorter than the minimum length because the owner modified it, it was illegal. However, if it came from a factory that short, it was perfectly legal – and indeed, the firearms market has been flooded with factory assembled, short shotguns.
The airgun example I sighted went to show how the definition of firearms is skewed and inaccurate. Anyone can purchase an airgun from Canadian Tire or Walmart, without a gun license, and it does NOT need to be stored, transported, operated or registered the way a firearm does. I’ve put a hole through a piece of 2×4 with my airgun, so it’s certainly no less dangerous than any legally defined “firearm,” yet it is not treated as a firearm by the law.
Hopefully this will help clear up some of the examples I cited in my previous post.
Good night!
HTC
Ms Elizabeth,
Although not nearly as articulate as some others who have responded ,i feel the need to make just one comment, that I am sure will NOT make it to you’re blog, or at the least, censored.
I suggest that you return to you’re native land (America) and continue you’re lobbying efforts there. For you see, as you are NOT a Canadian, most of us feel that your opinion is not wanted here.
Hi Elizabeth, you shouldn’t take it personal or assume that Mr Breikreutz doesn’t want to debate.
Half the time I write my own MP I don’t hear back and once when I wrote the Prime Ministers Office it took about eight weeks to get a written reply.
When I wrote the Governor General I never heard back.
I’m glad that the legislator you work for appears to be responsive but here in Canada not hearing back is the norm based on my experience.
Persistence and patience appear to be the only way to get our politicians to talk to us.
Oh come one Elizabeth.
If you are watching the goings on in Canadian Politics then you know FULL WELL why Gary was a no show.
It was due to the outright LIES of the NDP and Liberal MPs which was picked up by the CBC and Toronto Star.
For you to try and make Gary out to look bad as a result is frankly shameful!
Hi Elizabeth,
Please don’t get discouraged because of all of the negative posts.
You see, there is a well organized gun lobby at work that attacks anyone who favors the registry. Check out CanadianGunNutz.com (a rather fitting name)to see how organized they are.
The other sad thing is that the Reform/Conservative party used misinformation and fear tactics against the gun registry to gain votes in past elections.
Now that their poll numbers are dropping it appears the same misinformation and fear tactics used in the past are being recycled. This is morally wrong!
For your info, Elizabeth, and for the info of the “GunNutz”, a very informative and factual “Stats Canada report on Homicides in Canada 2007” can be found at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008009/article/10671-eng.pdf .
Particularly interesting are pages 8,9,10, and 22 in the report. The data shows that long gun homicides have declined since the Registry.
The report also shows that the rates per 100,000 population are highest in MP Garry Breitzkreuz’s western Canada, especially in Manitoba.
Is it not paradoxical that areas of Canada populated by “law abiding gun owners”, who believe there should not be a registry, have the highest homicide rates!
Personally I am not “anti-gun! I am “pro Gun Registry” and believe it is as useful a program as the Vehicle Registry and that all Canadians should support it. The human and monetary resources invested in the Registry must not be wasted!
I find it incomprehensible how those who register vehicles without complaint or concern cannot do the same with their guns!
Every positive reason for having a Vehicle Registry can also apply to the Gun Registry.
It is intended to keep vehicles out of the hands of unsuitable drivers.
You must pass a test to get a license to drive. You must register the vehicle and obtain a license plate for it. And you must have valid insurance to operate the vehicle.
Police can trace vehicles stolen or involved in accidents.
If you operate your vehicle irresponsibly, i.e. drive under the influence, cause death, or have numerous violations of the Traffic Act, your License and right to operate a vehicle can be taken away.
Conversely, every frivolous negative argument used by opponents of the Gun Registry sound ridiculous when applied to the Vehicle Registry!
It penalizes law abiding vehicle owners. Criminals will not register their vehicles. The registry has not prevented a single traffic death. The cost is astronomical. With the money wasted on the registry we could hire more traffic police and fix potholes. Etc, etc.
I urge Conservatives and their “GunNutz” supporters who oppose the Gun Registry to do the right thing. Get in their registered vehicles, check to make sure their license plates, insurance, and drivers license are current, and go register their guns!
KEEP UP THE GOOD FIGHT ELIZABETH!
“It is intended to keep vehicles out of the hands of unsuitable drivers.”
The vehicle registry???? How so? I thought it was just about taking an object and registering it in my name and then I can carry some extra papers around with me. How exactly does it prevent me from getting hammered and driving around once I have done the necessary registrations? It’s a piece of paper, it has no influence on my actions.
“You must register the vehicle and obtain a license plate for it. And you must have valid insurance to operate the vehicle”
Yes, true if you intend to abide by the law. Cos if it was working so great as you pretend it does, how come there are so many people driving without licenses and/or proper insurance?! Again, you are expecting that a piece of processed tree and metal will influence my actions.
“Police can trace vehicles stolen or involved in accidents.”
Yes, if it is indeed registered and the VIN intact. If that is not the case, well… maybe next time, eh.
“If you operate your vehicle irresponsibly, i.e. drive under the influence, cause death, or have numerous violations of the Traffic Act, your License and right to operate a vehicle can be taken away.”
And given back to you in no time as long as you pay the necessary fees and possibly wait the required amount of time. Revolving door, anyone? Then again, people drive without licences/ insurance daily, so… yeah. Works great. Kudos.
Also it can only be taken away from you if you actually get caught. See, that’s the thing with laws. If you choose to ignore them, they are non-existent until you get caught red-handed.
“Conversely, every frivolous negative argument used by opponents of the Gun Registry sound ridiculous when applied to the Vehicle Registry!”
Aaaah yes. Let me ask you, Gordon, let’s pretend you own a Porsche. You love it, take care of it, register it, all the good stuff. Let’s say some drunk in a Porsche drives around and causes a mess and the politicians decide to ban that specific brand of car and confiscate and destroy all existing models in Canada, nevermind restricting cars to be able to only drive 30km/h now because of what this one person did, would you still be in favor of the vehicle registry when they come knocking on your door, to take your car? Or would you ask them: Why do you blame and punish me for something someone else has done? Why do you not spend the money on programs to help people with alcohol and drug problems? Why do you restrict and destroy my property, an object instead of taking care of the root problem: people and their actions?!
See, that’s what just doesn’t seem to click with so many of you gun control people.
Laws are fine and dandy if people decide to abide by them.
Criminals DO NOT care about the law. That’s why they are criminals. They take part in criminal acts/ behaviour which means they are breaking the law, ignoring the law. How hard of a concept is that?
You make a law, someone will break it. Ok, that’s life. Now comes the flaw: Instead of punishing the law-breakers severely, making an example out of them, more laws are being added (cos the first worked so well, right} which then will only affect the law-abiding cos only the law-abiding abide by those laws! Meanwhile the criminal, the law-breaker, s/he laughs and goes home after telling the judge s/he is so sorry for his/her actions and will never do it again.
But oh well, you folks keep on believing that processed trees and computer data will influence someone’s actions and make Canada a safer place.
Maybe one day you guys and gurls will join the rest of us in real life. Til then, good luck and keep your cell charged… after all calling 911 is the only acceptable option in the fight against crime. Or so they say.
“It’s funny that you bring up C-301. Breitkreuz authored it, but he was a no show both times it was brought up for debate in session. Go figure.”
This is where your lack of understanding of Canadian politics comes into play. Right now there is a minority government and the opposition parties made it very clear they would not pass the law. C-301 had many reforms in it that was more sweeping then the current bill in play. And in Federal politics here if the bill went to vote and it was voted down the issue is considered closed and cannot come back to be voted on again during the current session. You only get one kick at the can here that is not to say the same is not true in America because I honestly do not know.
I wish my politicians where as responsive as yours.
Thanks,
Paul
Ho hum
Gordon Gordon Gordon.
Are you seriously going to try and compare gun control to cars?
Really?
I mean that has been tried and disproven so many times it is laughable.
Pathetic even.
Alberta Gordon says:
“You see, there is a well organized gun lobby at work that attacks anyone who favors the registry. Check out CanadianGunNutz.com (a rather fitting name)to see how organized they are.”
Attacks? Since when is well-informed opposition an attack? I’m used to that rhetoric.
But, I guess CGN is busted. Oh me Oh my, whatever will I do? I’m not sure why Alberta Gord mocks the most informative pro-firearms site in Canada simply because of it’s chosen moniker, though… we’re just using what the gun grabbers call us, and “taking it back”… not unlike certain musicians’ use of the “n word”.
CGN is a wealth of information, not only on firearms politics, but all areas to do with firearms, from hand-loading recipes to collecting military surplus arms, firearms law to upcoming gun shows… I challenge you to find another single collective with as much hands-on knowledge of this subject matter.
Bear in mind that there are a little over 47000 on-line members of CGN. There are millions of firearms owners in Canada. The ones that don’t participate on CGN are just as adversely affected by our current laws as those of us who do. Trust me, I wish that every firearms owner was a member. Thanks for the plug… our numbers increase with every media mention. Happened when uber-left NOW Magazine cast aspersions our way, and again when the G&M did an article on bill C-301. Operators are standing by.
Are CGN’ers Vocal? Yes. Knowledgeable? Certainly.
Organized? Hardly. Independently opinionated? Bet your sweet a$$. But just think of the message we could get out if we had taxpayer funding, Gord. You know, like the anti-gun lobbyists get? Do posters here know that the Coalition for Gun Control was actually paid taxpayer dollars to lobby the Liberal gov’t for more funding for gun control? A paradox is not just two piers, it would seem.
Wait for it…. next Gord’ll be trotting out the good old “powerful NRA-backed Canadian gun lobby” deceit. (FYI: there is no such animal, Elizabeth, just individual Canadians, using not a nickel of US money.)
Turning to vehicles, Alberta Gord… what keeps you safe behind the wheel? … When you’re doing a dime over the posted speed limit between Red Deer and Olds, is it the training you took to learn to drive, or the safety features of the car? Don’t tell me it’s the little piece of pink paper tucked away in the glove box between the owner’s manual and the Kleenex. Really? Does that registration paper have telekinetic control of your car? My little piece of pink paper must be defective, in that case, because if I let go of the wheel, my truck pulls…. to the right, naturally. That is all the gun registry is. Little pieces of paper, linked to an overpriced central database. Worthless.
Consider yourself pwned by your own words “Conversely, every frivolous negative argument used by opponents of the Gun Registry sound ridiculous when applied to the Vehicle Registry!”
Andrew E.
And yes, I’m a CSSA, NFA, NRA, OFAH, NWTF, DU, and CGN member.
Hi Elizabeth,
My suggestion wasn’t directed to someone who doesn’t “know how the political system is SUPPOSED to work,” it’s directed towards you – a person who doesn’t know how the Canadian political system ACTUALLY works.
Being an IT professional, let me explain something to you – I personally can type 100 words per minute. For me to send an e-mail correspondence to every member of parliament takes less than 5 minutes with next to no effort. For this reason, the relevance of e-mail correspondence is next to meaningless.
I hand write at about 20 words per minute, and for me to send the same personalized, hand written letter that would have taken me 10 minutes to type as an e-mail, then takes me about 30-40 minutes to write, plus the time to photocopy a copy for each MP, plus the time it takes to put the letter into an envelope and the time it takes me to drive to the nearest mailbox. A task that, compared to sending an e-mail, takes a great deal more effort.
If you are an elected official, what does it say about the author of a correspondence if they deliberately take the time and effort to send you a physical, paper letter, written by their own hand, and send a carbon copy to all your peers? It says that someone out there took the effort, despite the availability of more convenient means, to attempt to communicate with them.
If you are that elected official, who than do you think is more emotionally committed, and therefore more deserving of your time? The hack who spent 10-15 minutes throwing together an e-mail and sending it to a 200 person distribution list, or the genuinely concerned person who took 1-2 hours of their own time and effort to contact you and your colleagues with a physical, paper artifact? I’d say the 10-15 minute person warrants a canned response, while the 1-2 hour person gets the interview (or personalized response)
After all, an e-mail can be disregarded as easily as pointing a mouse and pressing “DELETE,” (the same way you could just as easily delete this post in your blog). A paper letter has to be either crumpled up and thrown in a trash bin, or walked to a disposal room and put into a shredder. I will say in my personal case, I write an e-mail weekly, and send a paper letter monthly to someone out in Ottawa, telling them it’s time to turf the gun registry (including many of the details I in turn relay to bloggers and media sites online)
You probably know the social network that brought me to your blog, and I can honestly say I know of dozens of others who, like me, devote HUGE amounts of their personal time contacting their elected officials via e-mail, fax, snail-mail, and personal visits to their constituency offices (in our case, asking them to abolish the gun registry). We spend a lot of our personal time debating the responses we get back.
Many of us have even been part of organized rallies with many of us meeting them face to face, vigorously protesting with them against political policy we think is unjust (see the Coalition Government of Dec 2008). Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s this kind of political action by grassroots movements of passionate supporters that got Obama elected, was it not?
You’re in a yelling match with the rest of us, and quite frankly, you’re article is making a big fuss about the fact that we’re vastly out yelling you. Just to prove my point, you’ve inspired me with the contents of the next hand written letter to my MP – I’m going to ask him for 5 minutes of his time to explain to me personally his stance on the gun-registry. He’s pretty good getting back to me, usually about 3 weeks. It may take me an hour to write and send, but I am quite confident respond in short order (he always has in the past).
Harbthecat,
Well then, I’ll just take the four plus years of experience I have working with numerous politicians as null and void; I must be doing something wrong. Next time I get a request over email I’ll make sure to walk over to the mailbox first to check for a handwritten letter, because it’s obviously more important than the email someone sat down and took time to write.
So what are you saying “NoName”? Should we abandon the vehicle registry because a few lawbreaking criminals can get around the system?
THE VEHICLE REGISTRY HAS A HISTORICAL PROVEN WORTH, IS ACCEPTED BY EVERYONE, AND IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE GUN REGISTRY!
I have many “law abiding” friends here in Alberta who obey “the law” and register both their cars and their guns and believe strongly in both systems.
Why can’t you supposedly “law abiding” GunNutz members do the same?
On a more personal note, a very good friend of mine tragically lost his sister many years ago. She was shot to death on their farm by a jealous abusive husband whose should never have been allowed to continue to own a shotgun. (this was many years before the gun registry)
For this reason I would like to share the following that was sent to my by a relative from Guelph, Ontario
GUELPH MERCURY – JULY 3, 2009, LETTER
Dear Editor – I am writing in response to a recent letter stating that the gun registry had not solved or prevented a single crime. As a psychiatrist in a rural area where guns are prevalent, I have invoked the gun registry at times where it is necessary, to either get someone’s guns removed or prevent them from getting guns because of mental illness. I am sure this has prevented tragedies but, unfortunately, none of those events make headlines. I practised psychiatry in Prince George, B.C., before the gun registry was available, and it was difficult then to have guns removed. There have been some 22,000 licences denied to date, and a recent Ottawa Citizen article reported that the number of firearms surrendered and confiscated since Nov. 1 is 8,281 — 74 per cent of which were nonrestricted shotguns and rifles. The same article reports that the reason for these confiscations is usually that the individual has threatened or use violence. So, are we really comfortable with allowing these people to arm themselves by removing the mechanism which allows authorities to locate and remove firearms, the long-gun registry? It is impossible to truly measure the prevention of suicides, accidents and crimes. However, we can measure rates of all these over time. We know the incidence of gun deaths and injuries are at their lowest levels in more than 30 years. Since 1995, the rate of homicide with rifles and shotguns has dropped by 50 per cent, and gun-related murders of women have fallen by two-thirds. The gun registry is an inconvenience for hunters, farmers and other gun owners, but it helps people like me and the police prevent tragedies. Since gun owners are only required to register their firearms once per gun, it is a minor inconvenience that is having a major impact on gun crime, suicides and accidents, perhaps more than any other intervention we have.b The registry needs to be preserved. Dr. Barbara Kane, Prince George, B.C.
The comment period for this entry is now closed.